The Turbo the MR2 vs Just buy a faster car argument

[muffdan]

I completely agree with Chris. The MR2 feels like it was designed to take more power. I'm amazed there wasn't a 2zz engine option at POS as it feels like it was made for it. You give it more bhp, and the car feels in no way compromised with it's handling.

I've driven other faster stock cars, 350Z, RX8, Boxster S, 911 4S, 911 2S, M3, Z4 and an Elise. None of them have left me wishing I had one instead of my MR2. I love the interior of the Porsches and I like the sounds made by those with 6 cylinders. I love the wow-factor of the Elise and the practicality of the M3, but as an all round package the MR2 comes out on top. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the stock MR2 is better than these cars, but if you put the time and effort (and £££) into making the MR2 the car you want, you can surpass these other cars easily in terms of both performance and smile factor. You also get the bonus of it being cheaper than all the above to buy, cheaper parts and cheaper running costs, trivial depreciation and stealth factor.

Let me put it another way. Are those that advocate 'buying the orange' against modifications to other things? A house for instance? I'm thinking of adding a hot tub, a conservatory and landscaping the rear garden of my home this year. Should I forget those plans and simply buy a house that already has the hot tub, the conservatory and the garden with the unnecessary-no-other-function-other-than-nice-to-look-at-water-feature?

Ok, so perhaps the house analogy is a little different but my point is that the perfect car for some people doesn't exist. You can either buy the closest thing to it, or you can try and make it. Sure, there's Zonda's and Veyron's out there, but those and unfortunately unrealistic for most of us.

And just to counter-argue myself; I've agreed the purchase of a Lotus Elise to complement the MR2. It'll be the car I use when the MR2 is off the road, which unfortunately has worked out at over 50% of the time this last 2 years   s:oops: :oops: s:oops:  . This shows how much trouble (and cost) you can have with trying to build that perfect car, but it also shows I'll be sidelining this 'faster car' for my beloved MR2, because I know my MR2 is better all round.   s:flame: :flame: s:flame:

[stargazer30]

Righto, Thanks for the input guys, I'm happy for the mods to lock this thread now if they want as my minds made up.

If I'm going to spend the money on a more power its going to be the turbo route, Common sense tells me it would be better to buy a faster car in the same sort of league but the fact is there isn't any other car thats right for me when I consider insurance, running costs, purchase cost vs age of car, practicality etc..  

Mind you it shows theres a clear gap in the car market here, imagine if Mazda decided to do a 1.8L turbo MX5 for say £1 to £1.5K above the price of the basic 1.8L NA model, made it a round 220bhp and a sensible insurance/tax band! I recon they wouldn't be able to build them fast enough   s:D s:D

[ChrisGB]

[MOD]Bear with me, I am splitting the off topic bits to chit chat.[MOD]

[ChrisGB]

Sorry guys I should have said from the off, I'm considering the 200bhp package only, >200 needs a stronger clutch  :-) :-) :-)   Anyone driven a 200bhp turbo mk3?

I drove a TTE one and have to say that it drove excellently. Sure you can use more power, but around 200 makes it a complete package of go and grip.

Chris

[Anonymous]

You'll want a stronger clutch even with 200bhp, trust me. Stock one will hold it but it really won't last very long if driven hard.

[jamfe355]

Ive had the TTE Turbo fitted about 6 months ago. All i can say is that with around 200bhp, you really will have a big smile on your face, no one will try and race you at every traffic light as they wont know its turbo'ed, and if they do , most people will get a bit of a shock, or an A**e whooping. Also it is a very lazy drive if you just want to chill, with nice torque, you dont need to change gear all the time to overtake.

I would reccomend getting a turbo, and i would say that £2500, with £300-£400 in reserve for any unseen costs, which there will be. thats it though, £4000 is a bit high in my opinion.
Buying off a member like i did is a great idea, firstly you will know the setup is reliable, and second, us members are nice people who you can trust. you should tell us where you live, i bet someone with a turbo will take you for a spin and show you how quick they are  s:D s:D  

Lastly, I very much doubt your clutch will last long with any turbo, mine lasted 100 miles, although it had already  done 60, 000.

[stargazer30]

I'm up in Sunderland (that's near Newcastle for the southerners!) I wouldn't mind a passenger ride in a turbo'd 2 as SP is a good 4 hrs and 200miles from me so I won't be able to get a go in the demo car before I'm comitted (2 week lead in, and deposit paid up front)

With the clutch replaced its into the £5K mark, which is more than I want to spend, £4K was what I was aiming to spend but that means hoping my stock clutch with 19K miles will handle it.

[Anonymous]

If you can't afford another £500 for a clutch (that's parts and labour) then I'm going to stick my neck out here and say you probably can't afford to go turbo in the first place IMHO. Honestly, there's enough experience here to know by now that if you are going FI then you will need a better clutch, and to not allow for it is folly.

You may be okay for a bit if yours has only done 19K miles, but I'd still expect to do it sooner rather than later and at least that way there won't be any nasty surprises at a later date.

[stargazer30]

If you can't afford another £500 for a clutch (that's parts and labour) then I'm going to stick my neck out here and say you probably can't afford to go turbo in the first place IMHO. Honestly, there's enough experience here to know by now that if you are going FI then you will need a better clutch, and to not allow for it is folly.

You may be okay for a bit if yours has only done 19K miles, but I'd still expect to do it sooner rather than later and at least that way there won't be any nasty surprises at a later date.

Can afford it just, the more money the less attactive turboing is.  TBH if I am going to spend 5K why not spend another £700 and get the 240 bhp job!  Anyone fancy a group buy.. lol  s:D s:D    s:D s:D    s:D s:D

[muffdan]

definitely get the clutch done at the same time. It's not the power it's the torque that causes the slip and It will slip (sooner or later). If it slips straight away, you're going to be a little disappointed with the whole package which would be a shame. If you have to save up an extra month or so, then save up!

You're right on with the thinking for the 240 bhp. On a £/bhp ratio, spending another £700 to get the extra 40 bhp makes a lot of sense. Problem is, when do you stop! You could do it in stages, I'm assuming the extra £700 could be postponed and added as a stage 2 upgrade in 12 months time when you're use to the 200?

I can assure you, the 240 package works very very well in SP's demo car. Drive it, and you'll want it in your own car. My first test drive in it many years ago resulted in me leaving SP in my own car with a turbo bolted to it 2 weeks later.

[evileye_wrx]

I don't think there are any Turbo'ed '2's in the North East any more. Well there is DJ2k21's but his is around 400+ bhp and he's somewhere on Teesside

Phil

[kentsmudger]

...around 400+ bhp

s:shock: :shock: s:shock:

[evileye_wrx]

...around 400+ bhp

s:shock: :shock: s:shock:

Yeah, have you seen his signature!!

I should say, having owned a turbo'ed '2, I loved it until it became obvious I couldn't easily resolve the issues. I did decide to go forthe faster car and after my first proper blat of the year yesterday am very happy with my decision.

With a turbo I would factor in doubling your insurance and also things like gauges, a piggyback chip, tuning, additional servicing,  as well as a clutch. If I had 4 grand to spend on a '2 and lived in the North East I'd be straight down to Woodsports in County Durham and ask Paul to wab in a v6 for me.

Phil

[lemans]

My experience was similar to Muffdan.  Once I had driven the SP car there was no going back!  s:scared: :scared: s:scared:  

I also decided to go straight for the full 240 rather than 200 and then the extra 40 later on.  It was cheaper to go the whole hog in one go.  I also went for the new clutch even though the old one had only done 12K  (anyone want a slightly used standard clutch?).  No point in having power and not getting it on the road due to a slipping clutch.  s:cry: :cry: s:cry:  

I am loving every minute of my time spent driving the turbo.  I really believe that the chassis and brakes really do deserve more than the standard engine provides.  I am not saying the na is a bad car. It's just sooo much better as a "sportscar" with the turbo.  I just have to keep reminding myself to let the tyres warm up a little before giving it too much "welly"  (As a biker you would have thought I would remember  s:lol: :lol: s:lol:  ).

[MattPerformance]

A few of us have got reasonable result N/A with certain mods. Robs right up there and so far has the best results as far as Im aware.

You dont have to spend £3k-£4k to acheive this.

My spend was around £1000-£1100 mark which i feel is good for the results i gained

The mods are listed on my signature

CHE Manifold
Cobra Sports Exhaust
PPE Cold Air Induction
Emanage Blue
Mapping

I'm pretty sure David is set on a turbo conversion, but just for completeness Nathan, that £1100 isn't really an apples-with-apples comparison is it?  I'm pretty certain you couldn't buy all those parts new and fitted for that price.  If we're using a DIY/ second hand parts comparison, then £2k is the going rate for a SH TTE conversion which is cracking value by comparison.  I completely agree that a new turbo conversion (at £4k- £6k) is not for everyone, but there is a big difference between a brand new warranted drive-in-drive-out set up and a set of DIY parts whether new or second hand.

And now to the apples-with-oranges comparison...  Jason points out that what some people want to achieve is their ideal car, which is often something that simply does not exist... but can be created.  I subscribe fully to this, not because I sell MR2 parts, but because this is what I have done with my own car... and I love it!  Sure, I am a tuner so I do spend a lot to ensure my car is at its very best, but these claims of how much faster these alternative "fast" cars just don't stack up because my experiences have been very different, whether on road or track!

Once you've got the car tuning bug I don't think it ever leaves you, so even if you do go off and buy yourself a "faster" car in the future, you'll end up spending a fortune on tuning that too!  And, if you're not too unlucky (as some on here have been - you know who you are!), most of what you buy can be removed at a later date to recover a good chunk of your outlay.

The MR2 Roadster tuning proposition is especially attractive for all the reasons already discussed - try arguing ALL of those points with any other car!!

The '2 rocks!!

[Anonymous]

There is another point to consider, and that's driveability. I know for a fact that my old Roadster was miles quicker after I turbo'd it, and yet once the novelty wore off I know the car was much more fun to drive NA. There's something so much purer in the drive without a turbo, and it was the main thinking behind me not going for all-out power after selling the VXR. As good as a turbo car is, you simply cannot beat the immediacy of an NA lump that doesn't leave you fighting between lag and boost round the corners. There's no doubt that turbo cars are much better for this than they used to be, but the lag is still there and will always be there due to the very design of it. Most people don't even realise the difference in the drive between NA/SC/turbo, and they just look at the end performance figures.

For me, I'd say that if you really want to go FI then a supercharger is the way to do it, so you keep the feel of an NA engine but with the extra grunt that FI provides. And even after all that, if you really want to go faster then spending £4K on driver tuition will make you much quicker than any turbo kit, as it's the driver that makes most of the difference. I remember a few years ago at Elvington one of our members in a Unichip-equipped car pushing 160bhp being comfortably quicker than another one of us with a turbo on his car, although in all fairness having seen said turbo-car owner drive recently I believe it would well be different now...!



It's irrelevant saying that "Oh, my car has beaten this car and that car on track, so it's definitely quicker!" as it's 95% down to the driver. Case in point, at Bedford last year my brother in his 350Z managed to get the 996C4S in front of him blue flagged for driving so slowly round the corners. Now there is no way in hell a 350Z is quicker on track than the Porker, but the 996 owner just couldn't drive for peanuts even considering it was my brother's fist time on track! A 986S is going to be comfortably quicker on track than a turbo'd Roadster I suggest, but on the road in a straight line it'll get left behind. Power alone doesn't tell the whole story, feel and balance play more of a part in determining a great car to drive.

[stargazer30]

I don't think I'd go as far to say you can't have a good drivers car with a turbo.   I do agree for bigger turbos and remapped turbo cars this is an issue.  Bigger turbo, you get lag and typically remapped turbo cars give you full boost at command which can be a bad thing.  My remapped ST put out 260bhp and due to the small turbo had a very uneven torque curve, super torque lower down the RPM range and starved further up.  That + the front wheel drive turned the car into a point and squirt car, it was almost impossible to get power down out of corners correctly as the power delivery was just not linear enough.

So sure with an NA car no issues here.  However my ST as standard was much different.  Loads of people on the ST forums complain that the stock map is just stupid as it limits boost to 1/4 until 4K RPM.  The standard ST feels sooo slow compared to a mapped one.  But... the torque curve is totally flat and theres no lag.  I guess someone at Ford new what he was doing as it makes the car drive like a fast NA car.  I remember before I got rid and it went back to standard, sure it felt slower but it was so much nicer to drive.

[Anonymous]

I didn't say you couldn't have a good driver's car with a turbo, just that it's far more progressive to drive on track and fast twisty roads with NA.

[MattPerformance]

If you could get a 240 bhp and 220ftlb NA lump into the car that weighed around the same as a 1ZZ with a turbo kit then I'd agree with Dan completely - NA would be the best, but you can't, so it isn't!  This thread relates to making the car fast(er), and there is no way that anyone can argue that a NA MR2 is as quick as a turbo car in ANY conditions (all other things being equal).  Throttle response will be adversely affected by a turbo but the additional oomph more than makes up for it.  Personal preference about throttle characteristics and engine sound are another matter and make for a different driving experience which is why it is completely understandable why many prefer the car in NA form.

I completely get the V6 option though, but this is essentially irreversible so it is not as versatile as a turbo conversion and, ultimately, not as tuneable.  Supercharging is a middleground that, IMO, will leave you wanting more!

The world's fastest road cars (not just on road, or on track, just "fastest") either have turbos or BIG engines.  The latter is not an option for an MR2 Roadster.

P.S. I agree that driver training is relevant, but I've never had any.  Plenty of people on here have seen how fast my car is, and I'm the first to admit it's because of the car, not my driving!

[Anonymous]

If you could get a 240 bhp and 220ftlb NA lump into the car that weighed around the same as a 1ZZ with a turbo kit then I'd agree with Dan completely - NA would be the best, but you can't, so it isn't!  This thread relates to making the car fast(er), and there is no way that anyone can argue that a NA MR2 is as quick as a turbo car in ANY conditions (all other things being equal.) Throttle response will be adversely affected by a turbo but the additional oomph more than makes up for it.[/u]).

Hmm, I would disagree to an extent. Let's assume for a second that we'd put a lightly-fettled (p&p, intake, exhaust, possibly cams?) V6 making 240bhp (or even a K20A) into a Roadster and pitted it against a 240bhp turbo'd car and chucked them on track using the same driver. I would suspect that the V6 may be that little bit quicker  as you would be able to get the power down far quicker through the corners, so somewhere like Anglesey would favour this kind of car. Conversely on a drag strip the turbo car would of course the NA car for dead.


As always, it will depend on how you want the car to feel. I prefer purity, Matt prefers turbo thump, and that's why we have different views on this I suspect. No-one is right or wrong, it's just opinions.  s:) s:)




Here's a thought though: How about if you took a regular NA MR2 and spent £2K on power bits and £2K on suspension & brakes? I think that would be substantially more fun than either of the above routes on the road, and if you're only going to track it once or twice a year you're not going to lose out on much. See Nic's car for an example of how to build an incredible NA car (with respectful nods to Danny and FGRob, of course).

[roger]

If you can't afford another £500 for a clutch (that's parts and labour) then I'm going to stick my neck out here and say you probably can't afford to go turbo in the first place IMHO. Honestly, there's enough experience here to know by now that if you are going FI then you will need a better clutch, and to not allow for it is folly.

You may be okay for a bit if yours has only done 19K miles, but I'd still expect to do it sooner rather than later and at least that way there won't be any nasty surprises at a later date.

Just let you know i'm still on my original OEM clutch, and I have 200/220BHP. Just VERY occasionally there's a little bit of slip if I put my foot down in the wrong gear (and when I forget to take my foot fully off the clutch   s:( s:(  ), but that's been with me for a couple of years, and got no worse.

OK perhaps I'm not as fast as some, but I've done 3 trackdays and 2 airfields so it has had some hard work to do.

I've got my £500 put to one side (in my mind at least), but don't seem to need it yet. So whilst Dan has a good argument, by my experience it is not absolutely necessary to do it at turbo time if you want to save it for next year's Christmas present   s:wink: :wink: s:wink:

[ChrisGB]

This thread has taken an interesting turn. I completely see both sides of the debate here. Ultimately, the MR2 is a precise and nimble road car. One of the joys in exploiting what it can do is treading that fine line when the car is loaded up in a corner and you are teasing the power in against cornering force earlier and earlier. Here, the balance of the car is heavily dependent on part throttle response and this is the area where the turbo is at its most compromised. The bigger the turbo (relative to engine size) the greater the effect on throttle response. I have driven a TTE equipped car and the turbo install drove very well indeed, well up to the standard of a modern OEM installation. However, although lag was minimal if floored, there was still that throttle elasticity that you get with any turbo. This, for my personal taste, is at odds with the kind of car the MR2 is. Don't get me wrong, the extra thump was highly satisfying and made for a very entertaining road car, just not to my personal taste. Further, the torque delivery was quite linear with the torque fading out at the top end in a similar way to the stock setup.

Technically, there are ways to get around this. Supercharging almost completely eliminates the part throttle elasticity provided you don't have a big intercooler in the system. You can go bigger engine, but this almost always means bigger weight. You can go more revs, but this means peakier engines with less urge at lower RPM. They each have pros and cons in setting up. If I were staying with the 1zz I would supercharge it. The boost is fixed and linear, generally with a nice increase in torque with revs. On the downside, you end up with engine power being used to feed the engine, so ultimate output is going to be less. Turbos need more thought in controlling the boost. They can be prone to boost creeping up, smaller turbos give good mid but poor top end, for that diesel feeling and larger turbos increase lag and lose out at the bottom end. The art of a good install is the balance of these elements. I reckon the TTE had this very well resolved. Of course turbos use waste energy to do the job so are capable of ultimately higher outputs. Bigger N/A engines are obviously going to give better "quality" power, but there is both weight and cost to factor in. High revving engines are the other way to go. You get more power, but have to work harder for it. The opposite of what the OP is wanting, but for me at least, more in keeping with the character of the sports car the MR2 is, which is why I am seriously looking at the 2zz conversion in the next couple of months.

At the end of the day, you pays your money and takes your choice. More grunt with slight throttle response compromises (turbo), more grunt with slightly limited top power potential (supercharger), more grunt with more weight, some of it high up in the car (V6), more grunt with short manic gearing and greater demands on the driver (2zz). Of course you can just N/A tune what is there and get less than half the gain but with no compromises other than cost.

For all these options though, we should not forget the chassis and brakes. A set of Goodrich braided brake lines does wonders for brake feel. Bracing the shell moves the feel of the car up a segment making everything more clear and accurate. A set of coilovers makes the car much more settled and quicker witted.

Whichever way you go, one thing is for sure, it is gonna cost ya  s:lol: :lol: s:lol:  

Chris

[Anonymous]

Sometimes Chris, I think you and me are brothers separated at birth


I was thinking as well the other day, is the only reason that TTE made their turbo kit around 180-200bhp (depending on which dyno/car is being read) purely because of longevity and keeping a sensible warranty? Or was it because that's what they felt gave the best power increase to the car before you get to the hanging on syndrome I mentioned in an earlier post? Be interesting to know, that's for sure.

[Mad Matt]

Just to touch briefly on the turbo/SC thought: I would instinctively agree that the SC should give a better response and so be a more pleasant experience. However, in the Mini Cooper S I found the newer turbo one is actually a better drive, both on road and on track.

Back to the main topic: If you've got the modding bug, you'll just end up modding your faster car, in my experience. In terms of the MR2: I'd go for the turbo if you're otherwise happy with the the car. If you've always had a hankering for a Boxter S (or whatever the case may be) then go for that.

So which is better? Only one way to find out...... FIGHT  :-) :-) :-)

Perhaps I've been watching too much Harry Hill?

[OlberJ]

As a side note, Anyone know what a 1zz turbo with the intercooler weighs? Or the weight of a converted car?